Samuel Ibn Tibbon

Samuel Ibn Tibbon (c. 1165–1232) was a translator, philosopher,
and philosophical commentator on the Bible. He is most famous for his
translation of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed from
Arabic into Hebrew, but he translated other works by Maimonides, and
produced the first Hebrew versions of Aristotle and Averroes. In
addition to his work as translator, Ibn Tibbon was an original
author in his own right. He wrote the first full Aristotelian/Maimonidean
explication of the biblical book Ecclesiastes, a
philosophical-exegetical monograph entitled Ma’amar Yiqqawu
ha-Mayim, and several smaller philosophical-exegetical treatises
and epistles. His work was especially important in his native southern
France (“Provence”), but he had significant influence also
on Jewish philosophy and exegesis in Italy, Byzantium, and Spain, through the
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. He is rightfully
considered the founder of Maimonideanism, a philosophical-exegetical
movement in medieval Judaism.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, southern France (the Midi,
Occitania, what the Jews called “Provence”) was the most
active center of Jewish philosophy. There, in the communities of
Béziers, Carcassonne, Narbonne, Lunel, Montpellier, Arles, and
Marseilles, Jewish scholars devoted themselves to the translation and
dissemination of philosophical texts and ideas. During the period
1148–1306 in particular—from the Almohad persecutions in Islamic
Spain to the expulsion of the Jews from France—much of the
classical tradition, as translated into Arabic and developed in the
Islamic world, was made available in Hebrew. This included works of
philosophy and theology, logic and grammar, mathematics, astronomy,
astrology, and medicine.

The main translators during this period were members of a single
family. Judah Ibn Tibbon (c. 1120–1190), a native of Granada,
resettled in Lunel, where he devoted himself to the translation of
Judaeo-Arabic works, including texts by Saadia Gaon, Jonah Ibn Janah,
Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Bahya Ibn Paquda, and Judah Halevi. His son
Samuel (c. 1165–1232) translated Maimonides, and produced the first
Hebrew versions of Aristotle (the Meteorology) and Averroes
(“Three Treatises on Conjunction,” two by Averroes and one
by Averroes' son ‘Abd Allah). Most prolific was the next
generation of translators. Thus Jacob Anatoli (c. 1194–1256), the
son-in-law and chief disciple of Samuel, translated Ptolemy,
Averroes' abridgement of Ptolemy, al-Farghani, and
Averroes' middle commentaries on Aristotle's Organon;
while Samuel's son Moses (fl. 1244–1283) translated dozens of
works by Euclid, Geminus, Theodosius, Themistius, Hunayn b. Ishaq, Abu
Bakr al-Razi, Ibn al-Haytham, al-Hassar, Ibn al-Jazzar, al-Farabi,
Avicenna, Ibn al-Sid al-Batalyawsi, Averroes, Jabir Ibn Aflah,
al-Bitruji, and Maimonides. The last major figure of the family was
Jacob b. Makhir (c. 1236–1306), who translated additional works from
Arabic, by Euclid, Menelaus, Autolycus, Theodosius, Qusta b. Luqa, Ibn
al-Haytham, Ibn al-Saffar, Azarquel, Jabir ibn Aflah, and Averroes. He
also seems to have rendered a work from the Latin: a medical text by
his contemporary Arnold of Villanova.

The Ibn Tibbon dynasty of translators was instrumental in creating a
philosophical library in Hebrew. They also developed a technical
terminology, which was used by translators, philosophers, and
commentators throughout the Middle Ages. Perhaps more significant,
however, were their contributions as original authors. Thus Samuel and
Moses wrote philosophical commentaries on the Bible and rabbinic
literature and philosophical-exegetical monographs, while Jacob
Anatoli wrote a collection of philosophical sermons. These writings,
inspired by the work of Maimonides and saturated with the philosophy
of al-Farabi and Averroes, laid the foundations for a whole
movement of Jewish philosophy and exegesis: Maimonideanism. This
movement attracted enthusiasts in Provence, as well as in Italy,
Byzantium, and to a lesser extent Spain. It exercised influence and
caused controversy throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
and even into the fifteenth, when Jewish philosophy gradually turned
to Christian-Latin rather than Graeco-Arabic and Arabic sources for
inspiration.

Samuel Ibn Tibbon—the second generation of the Ibn Tibbon
dynasty—was born in Lunel, a small but very active rabbinic
center in southern France. There
his father raised him and educated him according to the ideals of
Islamic Spain. Thus, in addition to classical Jewish
subjects—Hebrew language, Hebrew Bible, and Rabbinic
literature—Samuel studied Arabic, philosophy and
medicine. Samuel was also introduced to the literary arts, including
calligraphy, poetry, and epistolary. But the world of belles lettres
did not find favor with the younger Ibn Tibbon; he was far more
interested in philosophy than poetry.

Although Samuel was raised in Lunel, he traveled extensively for
business and in pursuit of knowledge. During his youth, he visited
Marseilles with his father in order to engage in commerce. He
completed his translation of the Guide of the Perplexed in
Arles in 1204, consulted manuscripts of the Meteorology in
Toledo and Barcelona (between 1204–1210), and traveled twice to
Alexandria, returning in 1210 and 1213 (while in Egypt he seems to
have acquired Maimonides' “Letter to Yemen” and an
autograph copy of the Mishneh Torah). By 1211, Samuel
seems to have moved his primary residence to Marseilles. There Jewish
sages, on their way to the holy land, visited him in order to consult
his translation of the Guide. It was in Marseilles, moreover,
where he taught his son-in-law and most famous disciple Jacob
Anatoli.

During his early years, Samuel was influenced primarily by his
father. His mature work, in contrast, was built largely upon the
foundations of Maimonides. Samuel translated the Guide and
other writings by Maimonides, and corresponded with the “True
Sage” regarding problems of translation and interpretation. In
fact, much of Ibn Tibbon's life work was devoted to the explanation
and dissemination of the teachings of Maimonides. But promoting
Maimonides meant engaging philosophy more generally as well. Thus he
acquired extensive knowledge of al-Farabi, cited and discussed
Avicenna, and was one of the first scholars to make use of Averroes
and al-Bitruji. There is some evidence that Samuel had contact with
early Christian scholasticism as well. This is suggested by the
surprising similarity between the interests of Ibn Tibbon and those of
his contemporaries, such as Michael Scot and Alfred of Sarashel.

Of all the members of the Ibn Tibbon family, Samuel was the most
influential. He was already quoted and eulogized by his contemporary,
David Kimhi, and had decisive impact on the work of his son Moses and
son-in-law Jacob Anatoli. But his influence is felt elsewhere as well.
For example, in thirteenth-century Provence, he was plagiarized by
Gershom b. Solomon, cited and discussed by Levi b. Abraham, and
defended by Menahem ha-Meiri. In Italy, his writings were consulted
and commented upon by Moses of Salerno, Zerahyah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel
Hen, Judah Romano, and especially Immanuel of Rome, who excerpted
large sections from Ibn Tibbon's writings and incorporated them into
his commentaries on the Bible. So important was Ibn Tibbon's work that
he was singled out by the opponents of philosophy. Thus Jacob b.
Sheshet wrote a full-length critique of Ibn Tibbon's Ma’amar
Yiqqawu ha-Mayim, while Solomon b. Abraham of Montpellier —
the main anti-Maimonidean activist during the Maimonidean controversy
of the 1230s — accused him of revealing the secrets of
the Guide to the uninitiated. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, Ibn Tibbon was second to none as Maimonidean
authority in philosophy and philosophical exegesis.

The primary occupation of Samuel Ibn Tibbon was translator. This is
what he was trained to be by his father. His most famous translation
is the Guide of the Perplexed. But he also translated other
works by Maimonides, and produced the first Hebrew versions of
Aristotle and Averroes. A brief description of each of the
translations will be given here.

1. Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot
The first major translation of Maimonides by Ibn Tibbon was the
commentary on Avot, which was completed, according to the manuscript,
in 1202. Ibn Tibbon translated the commentary proper together with
Maimonides' introduction, entitled “Eight Chapters.”
The preface in particular, consisting of an introduction to and
adaptation of Aristotelian ethics, would become the standard
introduction to philosophical ethics in Hebrew throughout the later
Middle Ages.

2. Maimonides, “Treatise on Resurrection”
It seems that the “Treatise on Resurrection” was
translated into Hebrew during the resurrection controversy
(1202–1204), when Maimonides was accused of denying this religious
dogma. Ibn Tibbon translated it, and, it seems, sent it to Toledo,
where it was retranslated into Arabic and translated afresh by Judah
al-Harizi into a more fluid and readable Hebrew style.

3. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed
Ibn Tibbon began to work on this translation already in the 1190s,
corresponded with Maimonides regarding problems of translation and
interpretation, produced a first edition in 1204, and a revised version,
with glossary (Perush ha-Millot ha-Zarot), in 1213. The
translation itself generally circulated with the glossary, together
with Ibn Tibbon's marginal annotations, an introduction on
translation, and other study aids and ad hoc discussions.

4. Maimonides, “Letter on Translation”
While working on the translation of the Guide, Ibn Tibbon
corresponded with Maimonides, but only one letter by Maimonides
survives. This letter is a complex text, which includes a brief
introduction, discussion of problems in translation, a description of
his busy life in Fustat, and recommendations for philosophical
reading. The letter was originally written in Arabic, but survives
only in several Hebrew translations, one of which was rendered by Ibn
Tibbon himself. This translation also includes Ibn Tibbon's own
(often critical) remarks on Maimonides' suggested renderings of
difficult Arabic terms.

5. Aristotle, Meteorology
Ibn Tibbon's translation of the Meteorology was completed,
according to a manuscript colophon, in 1210, while returning by boat
from Alexandria. In the preface, he discusses the problems of
translating this work: the subject was difficult, the Arabic
translation obscure, and the manuscripts corrupt. Thus he consulted
manuscripts in Barcelona and Toledo in order to help reconstruct the
original. He also examined the commentaries on it by Alexander of
Aphrodisias, Avicenna, and Averroes—for textual witnesses and to
help understand the text. In some cases, he incorporated translations
from the commentators into the translation itself. Ibn Tibbon's
preface to the translation includes the beginnings of a lexicon,
perhaps part of a larger project, which was never completed or was
incorporated into his larger glossary (to be discussed below).

Why did Ibn Tibbon translate the Meteorology before any other
work by Aristotle? It seems that he did this in response to a remark made
by Maimonides in Guide 2:30—that Meteorology
is the key to understanding the “account of the beginning”
in Genesis, chapter 1.

6. Averroes and ‘Abd Allah, “Three Treatises on
Conjunction”
The translation of three short treatises on conjunction with the
active intellect by Averroes and Averroes’ son ‘Abd Allah
was also a pioneering project. They were the first works of Averroes
rendered into Hebrew, before any of the commentaries on Aristotle. Ibn
Tibbon translated them and attached them to his commentary on
Ecclesiastes. He did this, he maintained, because Averroes and Solomon
were aiming to do precisely the same thing: to defend the doctrine of
conjunction against skeptics who denied that it was possible.

These translations, therefore, like the Meteorology, had
strong exegetical significance. But they were read in their own right
as well. They circulated independently of the commentary on
Ecclesiastes, and became standard textbooks in the discussion of
immortality. Thus, for example, they were included in Gershom b.
Solomon's encyclopedic work Sha‘ar ha-Shamayim,
were commented on by Gersonides, and were incorporated into Hanokh b.
Solomon al-Konstantini's Marot Elohim. A composite
Latin version, based on the Hebrew, circulated under the title De
animae beatitudine.

7. Maimonides, “Letter to Yemen”
The last known translation by Ibn Tibbon is Maimonides'
“Letter to Yemen.” This text he seems to have acquired
while in Egypt; and he translated it into Hebrew circa 1214. Why he
translated this text is not known. But it seems that it did not
circulate widely. Thus already in the 1230s Abraham ibn Hasdai found
it necessary to produce a fresh translation of the work, since he
could not find a copy of the rendering by his predecessor.

8. Other translations
Ibn Tibbon incorporated translations and summaries of Arabic texts
into his original writings as well. This is true in the glossary
attached to the Guide (Perush ha-Millot ha-Zarot),
his commentary on Ecclesiastes, and Ma’amar Yiqqawu
ha-Mayim. Three of the most important examples are the
following:

8.1 Al-Farabi, Short Summary of Porphyry's Isagoge and
Aristotle's Categories
The first entry in Ibn Tibbon's glossary is the definition of
the ten categories and five predicables. Most of the text presented
there is a word-for-word translation from al-Farabi.

8.2 Al-Bitruji, Principles of Astronomy
In the glossary, commentary on Ecclesiastes, and Ma'amar
Yiqqawu ha-Mayim, Ibn Tibbon presents a brief summary of
al-Bitruji's astronomy; these were the first appearances of
Bitruji's novel theories in Hebrew. In the following generation,
the entire text of al-Bitruji was translated by Samuel's son
Moses.

8.3 Avicenna, Kitab al-Shifa', Meteorology
In the third chapter of Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim, Ibn
Tibbon presents a partial translation of a section from Avicenna's
Shifa' on mountain formation. The theory of
Avicenna—that erosion is prevented by the mixture of mud with
fatty oils—contributed to Ibn Tibbon's discussion there of
eternity of the world and the possibility of spontaneous
generation.

9. Spurious and doubtful translations
Many other translations are attributed to Ibn Tibbon in manuscripts,
manuscript catalogues, and later sources. Most are clearly spurious;
but two are worth mentioning. Isaac Abarbanel refers to a translation
by Ibn Tibbon of Maimonides’ introduction to chapter ten of
Mishnah Sanhedrin, but this translation does not survive. An anonymous
translation of the text, published by Kupfer, is clearly not his work.
The second is a translation of ‘Ali b. Ridwan's commentary on
Galen's Ars parva. According to the colophon, this
translation was completed by Ibn Tibbon in Béziers in 1199. If
this attribution were correct, it would contribute important
information to Ibn Tibbon's biography. It would also establish the
very early existence of an Arabic medical text in Hebrew. The
translation itself, however, uses terms such as nirdaf for
synonym that were not part of Ibn Tibbon's translation lexicon.

Ibn Tibbon's translations are generally literal. Unlike Judah
al-Harizi, his rival translator, he was not concerned with felicity of
style or purity of language but accuracy in meaning. Thus he uses
rabbinic as well as biblical expressions, follows the syntax of the
Arabic, and coins new terms, based on the model of the Arabic. He was
criticized for this method—by al-Harizi and others—but it
was his method and terminology that ultimately won out and became
authoritative throughout the later middle ages.

Ibn Tibbon discusses the problems and difficulties of translation in
several texts: The preface to the translation of the Guide,
the prologue to his “Letter on Providence,” the preface to
the glossary and the glossary itself, the preface to
Meteorology, and the commentary on Ecclesiastes. What I would
like to do here is present a brief synthetic characterization of Ibn
Tibbon's method of translation based on these sources. This subject is
important for understanding the work of Ibn Tibbon and the process of
creating a philosophical culture in Hebrew. Translating philosophy,
moreover, is a philosophical subject in its own right.

1. Editing the text, comparing manuscripts

The first order of business in translating a text is the preparation
of a reliable edition. Thus Ibn Tibbon, as critical scholar, made
every effort to collect and compare manuscripts of the texts on which
he worked. For example, in a brief introduction to his “Letter
on Providence,” he describes his efforts to eliminate
corruptions in his manuscript of the Guide by acquiring
additional copies and comparing them to his Vorlage. In the preface to
the Meteorology, similarly, he indicates that he had
consulted manuscripts of Aristotle's work in Toledo and Barcelona, and
had studied the commentaries by Alexander, Avicenna, and Averroes, in
order to help construct a more reliable text closer to the
original.

2. Consulting Arabic dictionaries

In the preface to the translation of the Guide, Ibn Tibbon
explains that, when confronted with difficult terms, he would consult
Arabic dictionaries. He does not say which dictionaries he consulted,
but a report by Todros Todrosi, in the preface to his
fourteenth-century translation of Averroes’ Middle Commentary on
Aristotle's Rhetoric (ed. J. Goldenthal, Leipzig, 1842,
p. 3), provides an exact reference: al-Khalil b. Ahmad's
Kitab al-‘ayn. Todrosi's report reads as
follows:

There was not sufficient power in our knowledge of the Arabic
language to produce this translation until God graced me with a
noble book which includes explanations of each Arabic word and its
grammar. It is called Sefer ha-‘Ayin. It is a book that
the noble sage, the greatest of translators, Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon,
may his memory be for a blessing, made great effort to bring from
Islamic lands.

3. Consulting previous translations

In the preface to the translation of the Guide, Ibn Tibbon
explains that, in his translation of Maimonides, he had consulted
previous translations, rendered by his father and by others. Moreover,
he explains that, when a term already exists, he will follow
established convention, even when he disagrees. One example of this
ambivalent deference to tradition is his definition of
“logic” in the glossary. The text (from Perush
ha-Millot ha-Zarot, ed. Even-Shemuel, pp. 43-4; corrected by
Hebrew MS London 904, 164b) reads as follows:

Logic [higgayon]: Some commentators have
explained [the rabbinic phrase] ‘keep your children from
higgayon’ [Ber. 28b] as referring to the
science called mantiq in Arabic. The Christians call it
‘dialectic,’ [referring to the discipline as a whole] with
the name of one of its parts. I have followed the commentators [with
respect to this terminology] and call [logic] the ‘art of
higgayon.’ But in my view it would have been better had
they called it the ‘art of speech,’ following their
opinion according to which they define man as ‘living and
speaking.’ Indeed, in my opinion, [logic] ought to be called the
‘art of reason’.

4. The use of Saadia's Tafsir

Another important source of Ibn Tibbon's translations is the
Arabic translation of the Bible by Saadia Gaon. This presented a ready
lexicon of sorts for the translator: he could identify the Arabic term
in Saadia's Tafsir and replace it with the biblical term it
translated. One example of Ibn Tibbon doing exactly this is found in
his glossary, in his discussion of the terms “definition”
and “description.” His discussion, as found in the
manuscript versions (see Perush ha-Millot ha-Zarot, ed.
Even-Shemuel, pp. 24-5, corrected by Hebrew MS London 904, 161b), is
as follows:

Having explained the meaning of these five words [namely, the five
predicables], I will attach to them the explanation of two additional
terms, namely, geder, ‘definition,’ and
hoq, ‘description’ … As for the term
hoq, I do not remember having seen this term used in this way
by any [previous translator], but I have seen that Rabbenu Saadia
translated the biblical term hoq, as in the phrase hoq
u-mishpat, ‘a statute and an ordinance’ [see
e.g. Exod 15:25], as rasm; and similarly he translated
huqqay as rusûmî [see e.g. Ps
50:16]. Because of this, I have translated the Arabic term
rasm into Hebrew as hoq.

5. Consultations with the author

When all else failed—after consulting dictionaries and previous
translations—Ibn Tibbon addressed his queries to the author
himself. In fact, there is evidence that Ibn Tibbon wrote at least
three letters to Maimonides regarding translation and interpretation,
and that he received at least two letters in response. But only Ibn
Tibbon's “Letter on Providence” (which was mentioned
briefly above), and Maimonides' “Letter on
Translation” survive. Notable about the latter is that, despite
Ibn Tibbon's efforts to consult with Maimonides, he generally
ignored the latter's advice, and continued to follow the
translation terminology and traditions of his father.

6. Coining new terms

One of Ibn Tibbon's most interesting discussions of translation
is found in his preface to the glossary. There he lists and discusses
six types of “strange” or “foreign” terms used
in his translation of the Guide: neologisms, rare words or
phrases, derived terms, homonyms, terms created through calque, and
new compound expressions. In the preface to the commentary on
Ecclesiastes, he then provides a rare description of how he actually
coined a new term through calque. This description reads as
follows:

Having mentioned the inductive syllogism, I shall explain what I mean
by ‘induction,’ when I use it here and elsewhere. I say:
it seems to me that the philosophers borrowed the Arabic word, which I
replace with the Hebrew hippus, from the language of the
multitude, who use it to express a notion that resembles what the
philosophers intend when they use it. The notion for which the
multitude use this word, namely, istiqrâ’, is as
follows. They say: ‘I have examined [istaqraytu] a
certain land,’ that is, I have traveled through all of it,
seeing the character [‘inyan] of each of its villages
and cities. The philosophers then borrowed [this same term] to
represent the examination [haqirah] of a single universal by
knowing the intention [‘inyan] of each of its parts and
species. They called such an action istiqrâ’,
derived a verb from it, and constructed whatever [grammatical forms]
they desired. They said: ‘I have examined
all of the particulars that are subsumed under a certain
universal,’ that is, I have used the speculative method to pass
through all of them, knowing in this way the intention
[‘inyan] of each of them. I did not find a single word
in our language closer to this meaning than hippus, even
though the Arabic word, unlike the Hebrew hippus, implies not
only the examination of a notion but knowledge of the notion
examined.

7. Defense of translation

After completing the first version of the Guide, Judah
al-Harizi produced a rival translation, apparently at the request of
some sages from southern France. al-Harizi's translation was
written elegantly and in Biblical Hebrew; its goal was to be readable
and accessible. Ibn Tibbon issued his revised translation, with
glossary, in response to this challenge. Thus in the preface to the
glossary he focuses on defending his own work and undermining the work
of his rival. He exposes al-Harizi's ignorance of philosophy and
highlights his own mastery of the subject matter of the Guide
and sensitivity to the difficulties of translation.

In the preface to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, Ibn Tibbon also
seems to provide explanation why the literal translation of
philosophical texts is superior. There he emphasizes the importance of
word order in the construction of meaning. Drawing from the rhetorical
tradition of “delivery,” he likens a written text to a
speech: it uses certain literary devices to imitate gesture, voice,
and facial expression. The text, describing the method of transmitting
wisdom through “chapter headings,” reads as follows:

[This method of teaching through ‘chapter headings’] can
be done orally and in person; it may even be easy for sages and men of
understanding to do this; for the wise instructor has available many
stratagems, digressions, and circumlocutions with which he can make
the understanding student understand his purpose, even when his
purpose is not made clear or explained. But he cannot do this when
writing in a book. A man, for example, might say to his associate:
‘you did really well when you did that thing,’ while the
person addressed will understand that in the former's opinion
what he did was really bad. This he understands not from the words
themselves, which are contrary to the speaker's purpose, but
from certain affectations and accidents of speech, such as the
appearance of the speaker's face, which may become red or green
like that of an angry man, or his tone of voice; that is, rather than
saying something in a gentle tone, in accordance with the manners of
speech used by someone speaking straightforward, such a person would
speak [using the tone] of someone who is speaking about something that
he considers bad. [The listener can also understand his
interlocutor's purpose] from other things that [the speaker]
might attach to the words or attach the words thereto. Many examples
of this type have been enumerated by the logicians.

Ibn Tibbon proceeds to discuss the ways to do this in a written
text, using rhetorical and poetic devices. The implication for
translation is as follows: any change in the form of a text will have
serious impact on its meaning.

Al-Harizi was right about one thing: that Ibn Tibbon's literal
translations are difficult to read. But even if they were elegant and
accessible, reading the Guide, and other translated texts,
would require background in philosophy. This Ibn Tibbon recognized.
Thus he did far more than simply producing literal translations; he
also initiated the creation of a cognate literature in Hebrew:
philosophical reference works and study aids. He produced the first
major lexicon of philosophical Hebrew; and he included explanatory
glosses in the margins of his translation of the Guide, which
established the foundation for a proper commentary tradition. A brief
discussion of the glossary will be given here.

The philosophical glossary or lexicon is, in fact, a very old genre.
The tradition of defining key terms was developed already in late
antiquity, and continued into the Middle Ages. For example, al-Kindi,
Avicenna, and Isaac Israeli all wrote books of definitions.

Ibn Tibbon's Perush ha-Millot ha-Zarot was the first
major philosophical lexicon written in Hebrew. It was written not as a
general introduction to philosophy, like the work of his predecessors,
but as a glossary to one translated text: Maimonides' Guide
of the Perplexed. In fact, however, it is much more. It includes
extended discussions of key terms, and works as both glossary and
lexicon, introduction and primer. Many philosophical ideas appear in
Hebrew for the first time in the glossary; and there is evidence that
the text itself was studied independently, as a general reference work
or study aid.

In order to illustrate its character, I'll present here four
entries from the glossary: rhetorical statement, natural science (or
physics), divine science (or metaphysics), and mathematics. With these
four entries, Ibn Tibbon introduced his Hebrew reader to the entire
Aristotelian curriculum as it had developed in the Arabic world
(including pseudo-Aristotelian works).

1. Rhetorical Statement [Ma'amar Haggadi]:

Know that there are five types of syllogism; Aristotle wrote a book
about each. The first is the demonstrative syllogism, in which
something is deduced from true premises. He called [his book on this
type of syllogism] the “Book on Demonstration”
[=Posterior Analytics]. The second is the dialectical
syllogism, in which something is deduced from generally accepted
premises. He called [his book on this type of syllogism] the
“Book on Dispute and Victory” [=Topics]. The
third type is the rhetorical syllogism, in which the premises are
convincing, that is, they convince the masses of their truth such that
they believe in them. These are inferior to the generally accepted
premises; and they are certainly inferior to the demonstrative. He
called [his book on this type of syllogism] “Rhetoric.”
With this type of statement or syllogism, moreover, one preaches to
the people in order to incite them to do something or refrain from
doing something or to fix in their hearts the love of something such
that they approach it or the hatred of something such that they remove
themselves from it. A statement of this type is called
“rhetorical statement,” just as a statement of the first
type is called “demonstrative statement” and one of the
second is called “dialectical statement.” The fourth is
the poetic syllogism, in which the premises are such that they create
an image in the heart of whoever hears them. This image leads such a
person to love or hate something, even when he knows that there is no
truth in those statements. He called [his book on this type of
syllogism] “Poetics.” The fifth [type of syllogism] is the
sophistical syllogism, of which there are two types: a) the premises
themselves are sophistical, that is, although they appear to be true,
when they are examined carefully by a scholar he finds that one or
both are false; b) although the premises are true, their combination
does not generate a [true] conclusion, even though it seems to do
so. This second type will deceive anyone who fails to examine [the
conclusion] carefully or who is not an expert with regard to all of
the conditions of syllogisms. The name of the book concerning this,
the fifth, type of syllogism is the “Book of Sophistry;”
it is the book called in Arabic al-Safsata and in Romance
Sofistica. These [five] works were prefaced by Aristotle with
his “Book on Syllogism” [=Prior Analytics], in
which he discusses all of them and makes known [in general] the
conditions and properties of the syllogism.

2. Natural Science (Physics):

The Master [Maimonides] has indicated that this is what the Sages
called the “account of the beginning.” He meant by this
that the secrets of the “account of the beginning”
represent chapter headings in natural science, which is the science
that investigates all aspects of things that are governed by nature,
i.e., all celestial and sublunary bodies and their accidents. The final
source of all books in this science are those written by Aristotle.
These include the following: 1) “The Discourses on Nature”
[=Physics], in which natural things are discussed in general.
2) “On the Heavens and the World,” in which the spheres,
planets, and stars, along with the four elements and their mixtures,
are discussed in general. 3) “On Generation and
Corruption,” in which the causes of generation and corruption,
their attributes and quiddity, are discussed in particular. 4)
“The Signs of Heaven” [=Meteorology], in which
accidents and things that come into existence in the upper part of the
atmosphere are discussed; some of these things, when they come into
existence, are also found on land or in the sea. 5) “On Minerals
and Stones,” in which their quiddity and quality are discussed.
6) “On Plants,” in which the nature of every thing that
experiences growth is discussed. 7) “On Animals,” in which
all accidents which affect both rational and irrational animals are
discussed, as well as the utility of their limbs. 8) “On the
Soul,” in which the faculties of the human soul are discussed in
general. 9) “On Sense and Sensibilia” [=Parva
naturalia], in which the nature of the senses in particular, as
well as sleep and being awake, are discussed. As for the chapter
headings set forth in the biblical section on Genesis, they cover only
a small portion of what is contained in these books: not one in a
hundred or even one in two hundred…

3. Divine Science (Metaphysics):

A science which discusses that which has no nature, i.e., things that
are intellectual and separate from matter, like the Lord, His angels,
and other things that derive from the actions of the intellect and
from the knowledge of the intellect—they have no action in the
sense world. The root of all books in this science is
Aristotle's book called “Metaphysics.”

4. Mathematics:

Know that the demonstrative sciences have three divisions: natural
science, mathematics, and divine science. We have already explained
the first and the last. As for the second, namely mathematics, it
includes geometry, arithmetic, astronomy—which includes the
study of the spheres and planets and the judgments of the planets
[=astrology]—and the science of melody, which is called
“music.” The three terms “mathematics,”
“propadeutic” and “training” are synonyms used
for this division of science; for it is like a science that trains,
teaches, or serves the other two divisions.

Ibn Tibbon wrote two main original works: A commentary on Ecclesiastes
and a philosophical-exegetical monograph entitled Ma'amar
Yiqqawu ha-Mayim. He also wrote introductions to his
translations, letters to Maimonides, and a short treatise on the
“Reason for the Table and Shewbread.” In addition to these
works, which are extant, he planned two other commentaries as well,
which were never completed: A commentary on the internal meanings of
Proverbs and an esoteric commentary on Genesis, entitled Ner
ha-Hofes (see Prov 20:27).

What is the character of these writings? Although they are diverse
in form and content, they all share two main characteristics: they
discuss philosophical ideas in the form of biblical exegesis; and they
build upon discussions of verses and rabbinic dicta found in the
Guide and borrow and apply methods developed by the
Guide. Any discussion of Ibn Tibbon, therefore, needs to work
through a complex philosophical-exegetical process: from the Bible,
to rabbinic literature, to Maimonides; and from Maimonides, through
rabbinic literature, to the Bible.

Why did Ibn Tibbon write his philosophy in this way? Why didn't he
write straightforward philosophical or theological summas or
commentaries on philosophical works by Aristotle or Averroes? In the
thirteenth century, much of the philosophical activity in the Jewish
communities was focused not on general synthesis but on translation,
transmission, defense, and propagation; and teaching philosophy within
the framework of traditional literature was a very effective way of
spreading the ideas of philosophy. In particular, teaching philosophy
through Bible (or rabbinic literature) helped make foreign ideas more
familiar and helped justify the study of philosophy by connecting it
with authoritative exemplars. Most important, it created a safe place
for the doing of philosophy itself; for through a peculiar process of
canonization, beginning with Maimonides and continuing with his
disciples, specific biblical verses or stories became the standard
loci for the discussion of philosophical ideas or problems. The
biblical texts would stay the same, but the philosophical ideas would
change, in light of the novel ideas of a particular exegete or school
of thought.

In order to give a sense of Ibn Tibbon's philosophical exegesis,
I'll briefly describe his original writings, then single out a
few specific examples relating to a single problem: the final aim of
human existence.

1. The Preface to the translation of Maimonides, Commentary on
Avot
In the preface to this translation, Ibn Tibbon presents a full and
detailed explication of Jeremiah 9:22–23. He explains and criticizes
Maimonides' explanation of these verses in Guide 3:54
and offers his own novel interpretation, according to which the final
aim of man is knowledge and understanding of God, and nothing more
(see further discussion below).

2. The Commentary on Ecclesiastes
It seems that this was Ibn Tibbon's first major exegetical work;
it was likely completed sometime between 1213 and 1221. The commentary
is a large and digressive work, including a long preface, a
verse-by-verse commentary, and several digressions, in which Ibn
Tibbon introduces a philosophical subject or explains a related verse
in Genesis, Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, or the Song of Songs. The
philosophical digressions are mainly related to logic, astronomy,
meteorology, generation and corruption, celestial influence on the
sublunar world, and the soul and its faculties.

Ibn Tibbon's understanding of Ecclesiastes as a whole is as follows:
Solomon wrote the book in his youth in order to refute ancient
skeptics who denied the possibility of immortality (“conjunction
with the active intellect”). This he did by carefully examining
the arguments against immortality in order to show that they are not
“complete” or “cogent” or
“decisive.” The three arguments he refutes are the
following: that human intellect is intellect in matter, and therefore
cannot become separate from matter or contemplate separate substances;
that the intellect, even though it derives from an incorporeal giver
of forms, still requires a corporeal substrate; that ethics is a first
rather than final perfection, and cannot save the human being from
death and destruction.

3. Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim
The title of this work might be translated as: “Treatise on [the
Verse]: Let the waters be gathered (Gen 1:9)” or: “The
[Divine] Saying: Let the waters be gathered (Gen 1:9)”. It was
completed after the commentary on Ecclesiastes, possibly in 1221 or
1231. Like the commentary on Ecclesiastes, it is digressive and
exegetical, although in general it follows the order of Guide of
the Perplexed, part III. Ibn Tibbon begins this work with a
cosmological question—why is the earth not covered entirely by
water—and then proceeds to answer this and related questions in
relation to verses from Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Job, and especially
the Book of Psalms.

4. “The Reason for the Table and Shewbread”
This short treatise was occasioned by a statement in Guide of the
Perplexed 3:45. There Maimonides says that, although he can
explain most aspects of the sacrificial cult, he cannot explain the
reason for the table and shewbread. Ibn Tibbon thus takes up this
challenge from the Master. He explains that the table and shewbread,
and the very sensuous sacrificial cult in general, serves as a lesson
in theology. In particular, the gross anthropomorphic representations,
in Ibn Tibbon's opinion, expose the absurdity of conceiving God as a
body, with all the body's concomitant needs and relations. In other
words, the temple and tabernacle, working as a reductio ad absurdum of
sorts, helped to spread the true belief in monotheism.

5. Commentary on the Internal Meanings of Proverbs
In the commentary on Ecclesiastes, Ibn Tibbon says that he planned a
commentary on the internal meanings of Proverbs. Although this
commentary was never written, it is possible that preliminary
discussions were incorporated into his other writings. Thus in the
commentary on Ecclesiastes, Ibn Tibbon presents a full and detailed
verse-by-verse explication of Prov 1:1-7 and 8:22-36. The former he
explains as a prooemium, following the philosophical tradition of
writing prefaces: Solomon introduces the title of the work, the name
of the author, the method of presentation, etc. The latter verses he
explains in relation to the possibility of repentance: of sinning,
repenting, and returning to the Garden of Eden.

6. Ner ha-Hofes: An Esoteric Commentary on Genesis
In Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim, Ibn Tibbon refers several
times to this book, which he says is a work in progress. It was never
completed, but as with the commentary on Proverbs, it is possible that
preliminary notes and explanations can be found in his other writings.
Thus, for example, the commentary on Ecclesiastes includes several
detailed explications of verses from Genesis, including 1:11, 1:14,
1:20, 1:26, 3:22–24, 8:21–22. Ma’amar Yiqqawu
ha-Mayim, moreover, includes one chapter devoted to Gen 28
(Jacob's ladder), one to Gen 11 (the tower of Babel), and discussion
throughout regarding Gen 1 and the “account of the
beginning.”

Throughout Ibn Tibbon's writings, he returns time and again to a
few key problems: divine providence, the possibility of immortality,
and the final aim of human existence. These subjects were particularly
vexing: Maimonides had discussed them, but did not provide a consistent
doctrine; al-Farabi had famously denied that conjunction is possible;
while Averroes took up the question of immortality in several works
with differing results. Ibn Tibbon, for his part, worked with the
biblical texts singled out by Maimonides, but developed ideas drawn
from al-Farabi and Averroes. His discussion of three biblical texts,
all relating to the final aim of human existence, are especially
important. His interpretations will be presented here in relation to
those of Maimonides.

1. Genesis 28:12–13

And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top
of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and
descending on it; and behold, the Lord stood above it, and said: I am
the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.

In the preface to the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides
singles out Jacob's vision of the ladder in Gen 28 as a paradigmatic
example of the biblical allegory; he isolates seven key terms in the
story, which he decodes, in two different ways, in later chapters of
the Guide. Thus the angels ascending and descending the
ladder are explained in Guide 1:15 as prophets; they ascend
through study and descend, with divine wisdom in hand, to govern the
people. In Guide 2:10, in contrast, the vision is explained
in relation to cosmology rather than politics and prophecy. The ladder
is set up on the earth and extends into the celestial realm, the rungs
on the ladder are the four elements or seven celestial bodies, and the
angels ascending and descending are the celestial intelligences. The
Lord, standing firmly at the top of the ladder, is God as first cause
or prime mover.

Ibn Tibbon was the first philosopher-exegete to build upon Maimonides'
approach and to move it in new directions, which were more consistent
with his own particular interests. Thus in Ma’amar Yiqqawu
ha-Mayim, chapter 11, he emphasized the epistemological and
cosmological and eliminated the political. According to his
interpretation, the angels ascending are the philosophers, who ascend
the ladder of wisdom toward metaphysics, the final subject of the
curriculum. Who then are the angels that descend? They are not the
prophets, descending with wisdom to rule the people, but separate
intelligences, which descend to help the human intellect reach its
final perfection: knowledge of and conjunction with God.

2. Jeremiah 9:22–23

Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither
let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in
his riches; But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise
lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in
these things I delight, saith the Lord.

In Guide 3:54, Maimonides presents a brief discussion of the
purpose of human existence. Building upon Aristotelian treatments of
this problem, he presents four possible human ends: perfection in
wealth, health, ethics, and intellect. He then introduces a biblical
text, Jeremiah 9:22–23, which he says presents the same ideas of the
philosophers, but with one important addition. Namely, like the
philosophers, Jeremiah also singles out four possible
perfections—“might,” “riches,” ethical
“wisdom,” and “understanding and
knowledge”—but he adds something more as well:
“exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the
earth.” Thus knowledge of God, Maimonides seems to suggest,
should lead to action; the contemplative should serve a practical
end.

In the preface to the translation of Maimonides on Avot, as well as in
the commentary on Ecclesiastes, Ibn Tibbon discusses these same verses
from Jeremiah in detail, explains and criticizes Maimonides'
interpretation of them, then presents his own novel
explication. According to Ibn Tibbon, the final human perfection is
knowledge and understanding of God, without qualification. Thus the
verse should be understood differently, with the final clause relating
to God rather than man; man should understand and know God, full
stop.

3. Song of Songs 5:2

I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that
knocketh.

In Guide 3:51, Maimonides cites Song of Songs 5:2 in the
course of his discussion of the patriarchs and Moses. These figures,
he says, reached the highest level of human perfection, for they were
in constant communion with God and also fully involved in the creation
and governance of a religious community. They were like the
protagonist of Song of Songs, with heart awake even while asleep.

What was Ibn Tibbon's understanding of the same subject? How did he
build on and respond to Maimonides' use of the verse? As in the
previous two examples, Ibn Tibbon cites and discusses Guide
3:51, but suggests a different approach. As he explains in the
commentary on Ecclesiastes, the patriarchs and Moses did achieve this
state of philosophy and politics, precisely as Maimonides had
described it; they were asleep (in the world of matter) with heart
awake (toward the world of God). But in Ibn Tibbon's opinion, although
this state is worthy of praise, they could have reached a higher state
still: they could have been completely awake, engaged in a life of
pure contemplation, free from the hindrances of the physical and
political world.

In all three of these examples, Ibn Tibbon emphasizes the
contemplative over the practical. He works with the same biblical
texts singled out by Maimonides, but arrives at a different
philosophical position. It is precisely this interesting
philosophical-exegetical give and take, the free discussion of ideas
within a fixed biblical framework, that characterized the Maimonidean
tradition of philosophy and exegesis, which was founded by Ibn Tibbon
and continued by his descendents, disciples, and admirers.

–––, 1981, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the
Esoteric Character of The Guide of the
Perplexed,” Association of Jewish Studies Review, 6:
87–123.

–––, 1990, “The Secrets of the Guide of
the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenth and the Twentieth
Centuries,” in Studies in Maimonides, Isadore
Twersky (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
pp. 159–207.

Rigo, Caterina, 1996, Judah Romano's Commentaries on the Bible:
His Philosophical System as Contained in Them and His Sources in Jewish
Thought and Christian Scholasticism, Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew
University [Hebrew].

Twersky, Isadore, 1968, “Aspects of the Social and Cultural
History of Provençal Jewry,” Journal of World
History, 11: 185–207; reprinted in Jewish Society through the
Ages, H. H. Ben-Sasson and S. Ettinger (eds.), New York: Schoken
Books, 1971, pp. 185–207.